Monthly Archives: July 2025

Where Have We Heard This Before?

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal editors opined regarding the Progressive-Democratic Party’s “abundance” campaign in contrast with Party’s New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s campaign of paucity:

…higher taxes on the rich, greater income redistribution, and expanding government control over private business—or, as he put it in 2021, “seizing the means of production.”

Then they wrote this:

Despite the tension between the two camps, both believe government should re-engineer the economy and society to their desired liberal ends.

They seem surprised by this. But. But, but, but. Progressive-Democratic Party leaders have sung this song before, and we’ve heard Party’s singing.

Then-Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Barack Obama, on the eve of his election bragged that he was just days away from fundamentally transforming America. In his first address to Congress, the then-Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden announced his intention to fundamentally transform our national economy.

Mamdani should come as no surprise at all, and New Yorkers would be well to heed this and elect accordingly.

A Start

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R), after the latest telecon with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, which came after the his latest telecon with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who followed that telecon with a large drone and missile attack on Ukraine’s civilian housing and infrastructure, has said defensive weapons shipments to Ukraine will resume.

It’s a start, but it’s insufficient. The best defense is a good offense, and that’s even more true in combat than it is in football. With the barbarian forced to defend, to react to Ukrainian moves—at the least to divert resources away from offense to reaction and defense—the barbarian’s attacks will at the least lessen.

From that, we—the US and Europe’s nominally West-aligned nations—need to send Ukraine offensive weapons, also, in the numbers and at the rates the UA says they need them. If Ukraine can reach inside Russia at depth and strike railroad nodes and naval ports, ammunition and fuel supplies, troop massings, bomber and fighter bases, the barbarian will have a much harder time moving those troops, aircraft, and consumables (keeping in mind the redundancy, in Putin’s mind, of troops and consumables) into positions from which to attack.

That increases Ukraine’s ability to win the barbarian’s war rather than endlessly bleed from defending. UA’s successful attack on a number of bases hosting the barbarian’s strategic bomber fleet does seem to have lessened, at least relatively, the ratio of air-to-surface missiles to drones in subsequent attacks.

Another Reason

Posted on by
Reply

The Straits Times, a Singapore-based e-newspaper, has an interesting piece regarding Europe and exit taxes. The lede bullets include these two items:

  • European countries like Germany, Norway, and Belgium are increasing exit taxes to retain wealthy residents and collect revenue on unrealised capital gains
  • These taxes, levied on individuals leaving with significant assets (e.g., over €500,000 in Germany)…

The e-newspaper is of unknown provenance and reliability, at least to me, so take this with a grain of salt. The claims are entirely plausible, though, given the European nations’ broad range of taxes and high tax rates, and the states’ basic assumption that the money citizens earn is for the state to tax and not actually for the citizens to earn and remit a portion.

If the description is true, though, this is just one more reason for successful folks (not just the wealthy: Germany’s Purchasing Power Parity per capita GDP is €61,800. Those €500,000 in assets is upper middle class) to push the pace on leaving Europe before doing so gets even more financially difficult. The Soviet Union erected an Iron Curtain—literally in some places—in order to keep folks from leaving, so as to keep them working for the state. It looks like Europe is erecting a Euro Wall to keep the folks who earn money from leaving, so as to keep them earning money for the state. How long before they erect a 100% tax Euro Wall?

Trump and Ukraine

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) says he’s “not happy” with Russian President Vladimir Putin following the latest telecon between the two. Even, I don’t think he’s looking to stop his war. NSS.

Mr Putin added an exclamation point by hitting Kyiv with one of the biggest drone and missile attacks of the war the same night as his conversation with Mr Trump.

Putin has followed prior telecons with Trump with heavy drone and missile attacks against Ukrainian civilian infrastructure and residences.

Even so, Trump continues to dither regarding serious responses to Putin’s barbarism.

One possibility is that Trump is giving Putin every diplomatic opportunity to call off his barbaric invasion and war against Ukraine before Trump takes concrete action in Ukraine’s favor: serious sanctions against Russia and those persons, businesses, and nations that do business of any sort with Russia, coupled with unfettered arms deliveries to Ukraine in the amounts and times the UA says they need them.

That time is long past, though; Putin has responded militarily overtly negatively to those opportunities. It’s time to act.

The WSJ editors closed their piece with this:

Mr Putin thinks he can make President Trump look plaintive and weak, and then get away with it as Russia swallows Ukraine. If the Russian is right, much of the US deterrence benefit of the Iran strike will vanish.

That misstates the case. If Putin succeeds, all of our deterrence will disappear. And more: we’ll be actively inviting further moves by our enemies.

Yet More Disingenuousity

Posted on by
Reply

This time, it’s at the State level of education. As usual, the sham bellyaching comes from the Left. In a Just the News piece regarding the slowdown in dismantling the US Department of Education related to DoEd wins in a variety of education and court milieus, we got this from Leslie Babinski, Research Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience in Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy:

We’re looking at 7.4 million students with disabilities who could potentially be impacted by changes with funding through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act[.]
There are 9.8 million students in rural schools who depend on federal support for bridge funding in communities with more limited local tax bases.

This is hysteria hyping in education. Funding needn’t be impacted at all by anything DoEd does, including being disbanded altogether. That includes those rural school students. Education is, by design and overwhelmingly correctly so, local. The Federal government has no business being involved except at a top level—through Title IX’s protection of girls and women in sports and the elimination of DEI bigotry from school curricula.

Local means local, and the top of local in our federal construction is the States. Students with disabilities need extra funding, no doubt, and rural schools with limited local tax funds available also need extra funding. That funding, though, should—must—come from the States. They have no excuse for leaning on [in both sense of that phrase] the Federal government for those tax dollars remitted to the Federal government from other States. States need to do—and all they need to do, regardless of how hard State government politicians think it is politically—is to reallocate their existing spending to better treat their own schools.

That folks like Babinski don’t think of things like this is why politically oriented experts who are not actual politicians cannot be taken seriously.

Politicians in the Federal and State governments, on the other hand, who claim that State level spending reallocations are too hard to do are doing nothing more than holding our children hostage against those politicians’ personal spending wishes. That’s as disgusting as it is immoral.